Evita — Page 8

My one question, in the original, A New Argentina, was froth with large banners being revealed and torchlight, a truly thrilling theatrical experience, one burned into my memory. Is there at least something similar in this production to close act 1?

---

In "A New Argentina," Eva and Peron aren't in a bed anymore (but they "officially" get married). There are Argentina flags that descend down, no torches.

Martin was pretty good on the singing part, but he doesn't go completely out in the "Money Kept Rolling Out," most particularly at the end which I thought was weird. He seems like he is trying to sing in a "Broadway" voice over any pop sensibility.

Here you go! There are tons more on foursquare.com if you search Marquis Theatre in NYC
[IMG]

---

Wow. That's very interesting. Thanks for sharing!

Saw Christina DeCicco on Saturday and she was wonderful-her singing and diction were flawless. She, Cerveris, Von Essen, and Potter were fantastic.

I have to say as a whole this production of Evita is a snooze. They completely pasteurized the whole affair and took the edge out of the show. It's basically a staging of the film. All the bite that LuPone and Patinkin delivered is gone. I'm not talking about singing, I'm talking about the teeth this musical has. All the complexity and commentary on society, class, and fame is nowhere to be found. It's a clean, efficient, beautiful sounding bore. Even the staging is 'meh". At the end of the show, the woman behind me said, "why did everything take place in a courtyard. Did she die outside?"

As for Ricky Martin, he will be lucky if he has a voice left for opening. He's not singing. He's talk/singing, shouting, screaming and his voice was raspy and coming in and out by the second act. He also forgot lyrics. He was the least impressive aspect of the production and he got the loudest applause. Lemmings make me ill. He did not earn a standing ovation and cat calls. He couldn't sing the part. He is charming and dynamic, but he's not singing the score properly.

If you have to choose between Evita and something else, choose something else.

---

I largely agree with your observation about the show as a whole, Bettyboy but would probably say rather than 'the bite Patti LuPone and Mandy Patinkin delivered is gone" - that the bite of Hal Prince is gone. Most of what made EVITA great the first time was thanks to his concept of the material (including the characterizations).

Thanks. I never heard of that, and was trying to make sense of it. I definitely understand your intention though.

On the topic of Evita, I can't believe I only now discovered this video of Aaron Tviet singing Buenos Aires on YouTube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ck8aQCgAXrQ#!

Umm, I'm not an anti-revival lemming. I praised the majority of performances. All I said was Ricky sucked and direction lacked. Ricky does not sing well and dropped lyrics. Does that make me an anti-revival lemming?

---

Betty, to be fair, when I saw the show, Ricky Martin dropped no lyrics and his voice was in fine shape.

Yes, the sound design, over all, was good, but the orchestrations are a bit thin and the sound design, though it tried in places, could not compensate.

The design is lovely, but far too literal.. and the first 15 minutes have a number of great changes and reveals, then nothing but monotony.

The problem with the literal approach is that you spend the first couple scenes in VERY distinct, very complete realistic settings, then after "Buenos Aires" and "Goodnight and Thank You", you find yourself remaining on this incredibly realistic set that is meant to signify literally EVERY locale for the remainder of the show, so that alone scraps the idea of a realistic setting and breaks with the concept established at the top of the show.

Hmm... perhaps it was staged differently in London. I have not seen any London footage...

The show begins with the newsreel footage of Eva's funeral during "Requiem" and the first part of "Oh, What a Circus.", the screen is at first about 10 feet off the ground, perhaps, but upstage is fog and darkness, with the screen coming back down as the crowd disperses and Eva is revealed at the end of the funeral footage. It's played entirely in-one. Then the projection dissolves to a rendering of the courtyard set and it immediately fades away and flies out to reveal Magaldi in the courtyard for "On This Night of a Thousand Stars" and "Eva, Beware of the City" and then the entire courtyard flies out for "Buenos Aires."

There is no independent stair that moves in, but the two side walls and balconies DO move in a several points. The stage right balcony, with attached staircase, does move in for "Another Suitcase.."

The set, while beautiful, genuinely does NOT work. It is incredibly bad form and bad direction to establish several drastically different, realistic and incredibly specific sets / locations, and then all of a sudden decide to treat it as a unit set after you have established a different design concept. It makes it IMPOSSIBLE to follow the changes in location / time and plot. To make matters worse, there are large stretches of time where two actors are left to play a scene on what is, essentially, a bare stage with nothing to anchor their playing space or allow them to actually DO anything physically that would seem natural and no isolating lighting to even define their space. Any other pieces used to define locale are then used in a MUCH more stylized way.. Eva's luggage used to create the stages for the Rainbow Tour and the falling flags, Evita's bed and casket, the banner to create the stage for the charity concert.. it is a design disconnect. Yes, pretty objects, but without cohesion and purpose.

broadwayguy2, you raise a good point. It didn't seem like the lighting was well thought out. When they wanted to create a different locale, they never really darkened the rest of the set to create atmosphere. It's kind of a big fail.

---